memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Constitution class model (original)
FA status Nomination The work on this page, by Sennim, before and after it was spun off from the Constitution class page, is impressive to say the least. I don't know of another article on this site that has the depth and detail of this page. It's high time we do what we said when discussing the previously mentioned spin off, and give this FA status. - 15:10, June 26, 2010 (UTC) *'Support', I'm extremely grateful for the more than kind words of Archduke3, and indeed, I do believe it is the most comprehensive article available on the good "Lady E" anywhere at least where its depiction as production asset is concerned. But I would be remiss if I didn't mention people like William S. McCullars, David Shaw and Curt McAloney, whose work I expanded upon. As the saying goes, I stood on the shoulders of giants...--Sennim 18:42, June 26, 2010 (UTC) *'Support'--quite detailed, and meticulously cited as well. The only thing that might make it seem "not FA material" is the number of red links, though much of that can't really be helped as they're mostly people or effects companies that played very small parts in the grand scheme of things, and thus hadn't yet been high enough on the priority list to be given articles of their own here yet. Surely that's more an issue with those as-yet-nonexistent articles than this one, and in fact now that they're linked somewhere they'll be on "Wanted Pages" and someone can come along and create them. -Mdettweiler 16:09, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Ain't that the truth, as a matter of fact, some hidden extra work was involved while writing the article; I started the articles on Richard C. Datin, Jr., Magicam and WonderWorks Inc., they were too important for the article not to be tackled at once as well as on the magazines American Cinematographer, Cinefex and Cinefantastique which I consider prime sources for background information.--Sennim 08:43, July 1, 2010 (UTC) *'Support', really, really detailed. --Nero210 23:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Much appreciated--Sennim 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC) *'Support' - as I said in the Peer Review, it's really great to have so much information compiled and properly cited. – Cleanse ( talk | ) 07:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks for the once-over in that stage.--Sennim 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC) *'Support' - simply cool! --Jörg 10:13, July 1, 2010 (UTC) ::Much appreciated, especially from a stickler for detail as yourself, many thanks for finetuning the refit-AMT section.--Sennim 00:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC) Reconfirmation after split This is kinda out of the box here, as there is no precedent for splitting a FA. While this is a reconfirmation done early, it isn't a normal early reconfirmation. That said, generally the same reconfirmation criteria applies, but starting this discussion isn't a call for removal. This discussion will mostly work as a standard reconfirmation, but will cover both articles, so please remember to specify which one you are talking about if necessary. To address the undisputed & stable requirement in the criteria though, this will run for the full 14 days of inactivity to make sure this is fulfilled. The pages themselves though, both the original and split versions, haven't been edited greatly since that discussion started, so outside of the rearrangement, the content of these pages hasn't really changed all that much. If this passes, the current FA blurb will be merged into the original version, as this is still a FA and that blurb is still in use. Also, please remember that minor edits that need a few days (or less) should only require a hold instead of a full objection. *'Support' both. - 21:18, September 17, 2013 (UTC) :*'Support' both. - Sennim (talk) 09:51, September 23, 2013 (UTC)